I have rarely understood philosophy of philosophers I have to admit. Students of the subject have always seemed to be asking questions bordering on the absurd. That, of course is almost certainly because I have not been able to stretch my thinking out of constraints imposed by upbringing, the church and to some extant Danes as described elsewhere in this site, to understand. I did find a good introduction in Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder which uses a novel to help the lay reader understand the path philosophy has taken over the centuries.

However, just looking briefly at Aristotle (384-322 BC),something of Buddho-Darwinism and indeed stand alone Buddhism is evident. Aristotle argued that virtue was usually the ‘mean’ or average between competing vices. Buddha, at an earlier epoch than Aristotle, advocated taking the Middle Way when confronted by a dilemma and as I have tried to expose elsewhere in this site, both Buddhism and Darwinistic analysis of nature are able to be opposed rationally. Darwin because it is easy to practice a false version of his observations which can be misconstrued as “every man for himself” when in fact many animal societies and human societies in their turn have best succeeded by a cooperative approach to living, not least of course symbiotic relationships such as in Coral reefs. See the page on prosecuting Buddha for a quick view of alternative viewpoints to see enlightenment from.